Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (16139)	8/8/2002 3:44:19 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23908

The Oil Factor Until the nationalization of Iraqi oil in 1972, US and British oil companies controlled 75% of the production there. The nationalization by the Ba'ath government (which overthrew the US-British installed monarchy in 1958), sent shockwaves throughout the international oil industry and virtually ended the US-British dominance of the Iraqi resources. As Iraq turned to the Soviet and French governments for development funds and partnerships, the US and British companies like Exxon, Chevron, and BP grew increasingly concerned about the loss of this profitable source of oil. In addition, the governments in Washington and London began to look for ways to regain their control of these oilfields, as part of their strategy to control access to as much of the world's oil as possible. This strategy is what has driven US military and diplomatic moves in the Middle East since the middle of the 20th century, from the Potsdam conference to the current war against "terrorism" and its consequent saber-rattling against Iraq. When the UN (under the United States) began sanctions against the Iraqi people in 1990, punishing Saddam Hussein was a secondary goal. The primary reason for these sanctions and their continuing existence is to prevent any governments from trading in Iraqi oil beyond the limits set by the US-dominated Food-for-Oil program. As things stand today, if sanctions were lifted before any US war on Iraq, the French, Russian, and Chinese would activate oil development and trade agreements they have made with the Iraqis. All of these agreements can only begin when the sanctions are lifted. This is why the US and its subsidiary, Great Britain, refuse to consider any lifting of the sanctions and are marching their respective peoples off to war. These governments know that the only way they can fulfill their strategic and economic goals in Iraq is by invading that country, overthrowing Saddam's government, and installing a regime willing to do the bidding of Washington. It does not have to be a democratic regime, nor is it likely that it will be. It only has to make sure that the oilfields in Iraq will be controlled by the US and British oil giants. To this end, the Pentagon and its civilian counterparts in the White House and Congress are more than willing to occupy and rule Iraq until a pliable enough Iraqi government can be cast. Human Rights? counterpunch.org

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (16139)	8/9/2002 5:32:29 AM
From: Yaacov	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23908

You are a crack-pot! GG Who cares what happens in your country Siri-Lnaka! You third worl people have this unjustified fixation that we do care what happens in your jungles. We don't. Our reality is here, in the West. You can kill eachother, make love to your elephants and feel free to prey to who you want. All I am asking is to shut your mouth and stop criticizing US and Israel! Capisci?

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (16139)	8/13/2002 9:53:29 AM
From: Angler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

Len: An interesting illustration in how conflicts start and end. Contrast Sri Lanka with Palestine and one wonders how much the media attention and funding by foreign advocates advances the role of war rather than peace? There are many pseudo peace makers who really don't want the fighting to stop. The Saudis are a good example as they fund terrorism all over the world yet claim that their donations are for humane purposes. I wonder if our well intentioned and increased contributions to Israel are not extending the war rather than forcing them to negotiate a practical settlement. Perhaps, as so called neutrals we're just piling up more rocks for each to throw at each other? Thomas Friedman is one of our more intelligent journalists IMO. His opinion is always a valuable starting point for consideration. By the way you've detoured a long way from defending the environment. This domestic concern continues as more and more of nature's open space things get trashed. Angler